Edmonds Oil Dock to be removed soon.

[Fishstiq]

Creosote pilings? Are you freaking kidding me? People are worried about a couple of pilings leaking into the water? Alright, how about this.....

How many chemicals are leaked from boats, ships, waverunners and the like? How many pollutants find their way to the sound through runoff? How much crap just gets dumped in the sound untreated (Canada, anyone?). And these people are worried about pilings? What's next, adding a "Usage Tax" to my p-valve? Honestly, if you are worried about pollutants in the sound, this approach is like putting a band-aid on an amputated limb. These people just want to "do something", even if their solution is worse than doing nothing at all.

I agree it's stupid. I agree it's rabid environmentalism at it's worst. I also agree it's unavoidable, since Queen Christine waved her royal hand and said "Make it so". I'm with Ben on this one. Use their momentum agains them and carry them further than they intended by agreeing to the removal and pushing for replacement habitat. The plan shouldn't move forward until both parts of that equasion are accounted for.

[spatman]

Just a quick note to spatman:

Hey, I hope I didn't come off as antagonistic or argumentative. I wasn't intending to be, just trying to figure all this out and find out what it's based on, but I know sometimes I can get a little, um, abrasive. If I did, it wasn't intentional and hope we're cool.

no worries, dave. i know it's a passionate subject. no offense taken.

[dwashbur]

Creosote pilings? Are you freaking kidding me? People are worried about a couple of pilings leaking into the water? Alright, how about this.....

How many chemicals are leaked from boats, ships, waverunners and the like? How many pollutants find their way to the sound through runoff? How much crap just gets dumped in the sound untreated (Canada, anyone?). And these people are worried about pilings? What's next, adding a "Usage Tax" to my p-valve? Honestly, if you are worried about pollutants in the sound, this approach is like putting a band-aid on an amputated limb. These people just want to "do something", even if their solution is worse than doing nothing at all.

Agreed. Of course, I suppose they could put a usage tax on your p-valve, but I'm not sure what they would do about my wetsuit

I agree it's stupid. I agree it's rabid environmentalism at it's worst. I also agree it's unavoidable, since Queen Christine waved her royal hand and said "Make it so". I'm with Ben on this one. Use their momentum agains them and carry them further than they intended by agreeing to the removal and pushing for replacement habitat. The plan shouldn't move forward until both parts of that equasion are accounted for.

I suspect all or most of us agree. So, how do we go about this? I should be back in Bremerton within the next 3 weeks, I don't have a day job, and I'm prepared to get involved.

[Pez7378]

Ppants, Joe and I dove there tonight. 93 minutes. What a great site. I had forgotten how cool it is. There is LIFE everywhere. We saw Randy (RDW) onshore, and a few other divers at the pilings that appeared to be swimming "Up". It was only my second time there but now I'll miss it when it's gone.

[dwashbur]

Ppants, Joe and I dove there tonight. 93 minutes. What a great site. I had forgotten how cool it is. There is LIFE everywhere. We saw Randy (RDW) onshore, and a few other divers at the pilings that appeared to be swimming "Up". It was only my second time there but now I'll miss it when it's gone.

That was why I chose it to map for my DM. I wanted every diver in the area to be able to enjoy the amazing profusion of life that's down there. I still don't get this, but then politics never was my strong suit. I tend to try and gravitate to things that actually make sense...

[Joshua Smith]

Ppants, Joe and I dove there tonight. 93 minutes. What a great site. I had forgotten how cool it is. There is LIFE everywhere. We saw Randy (RDW) onshore, and a few other divers at the pilings that appeared to be swimming "Up". It was only my second time there but now I'll miss it when it's gone.

Really? I thought Randy was out in Neah Bay this weekend.

I will miss the oil dock when it's gone- I've had some wonderfull dives there.

[Fishstiq]

I suspect all or most of us agree. So, how do we go about this? I should be back in Bremerton within the next 3 weeks, I don't have a day job, and I'm prepared to get involved.

I have no idea, but I'm sure someone here does. Sounder, how do you feel about making calls and sending emails again? You might be a familiar face/voice to some of the people we'd need to talk to (because of your involvement with the pole/reel incident at cove 2). Who else would be willing to donate some time or effort? This would take lots of phone calls and letters I'm sure. If people can get attention to get these pilings removed, there should be no reason why another community of people can't get attention to have this habitat replaced with something suitable.

[Sea of Green]

[Sea of Green]

Actually, since they're planning on eventually relocating the ferry terminal there, the Edmonds T-pier would be removed no matter what. We're losing the dive site either way.

Very true. And I have to admit that something needs to be done about the ferry traffic problem in that town, because it's so far beyond ridiculous I'm not even sure there's a word for it. At the same time, it's a shame that they can't come up with a better way to do this. And looking at the layout of that part of the town, I'm not sure that moving the ferry terminal a few feet south (so to speak) is really going to do that much to alleviate the problem. But then, I'm no bureaucrat...

Take a look at the diagram of the new ferry terminal and it will give you a better idea of what they have planned:

http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/PressReleas ... native.pdf

Thought: maybe the existing ferry terminal pilings could become a new dive site once the ferry stuff is moved? Just thinking out loud here...

Those will be removed once the new ferry terminal is in full operation. There may be a lag time during which we could dive them, but we're talking years down the road. In the mean time, the only thing we have that even compares to the Edmonds OD is the Mukilteo Tank Farm pier, but access to it is a bitch. From shore, the only access is from the spot next to the hotel, and it's a LONG swim. However, I was down there scouting it out a couple days ago, trying to see if perhaps there was a better access (there is none) and the swim to it didn't seem to be much worse than the swim from shore to the T at the Edmonds OD. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never attempted it, but would be willing to give it a shot. But even the Mukilteo Pier is eventually doomed:
http://tinyurl.com/55mwb3

http://tinyurl.com/6gmjjs

[jeff98208]

i'll join in on that doc! no arguement from me and it sounds like fun.

[dwashbur]

Actually, since they're planning on eventually relocating the ferry terminal there, the Edmonds T-pier would be removed no matter what. We're losing the dive site either way.

Very true. And I have to admit that something needs to be done about the ferry traffic problem in that town, because it's so far beyond ridiculous I'm not even sure there's a word for it. At the same time, it's a shame that they can't come up with a better way to do this. And looking at the layout of that part of the town, I'm not sure that moving the ferry terminal a few feet south (so to speak) is really going to do that much to alleviate the problem. But then, I'm no bureaucrat...

Take a look at the diagram of the new ferry terminal and it will give you a better idea of what they have planned:

http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/PressReleas ... native.pdf

????????????? Based on that diagram, it doesn't appear that the new ferry dock complex has anything to do with removing the oil dock. Looks to me like they're far enough away from each other that the oil dock wouldn't interfere with the ferry operation in any way. I wonder if we can use that............

[60south]

There are a couple of reefs made from riff-raff on the north side

If y'all chain yerselves to the pilings, it really would be made out of riff-raff...

[Sea of Green]

There are a couple of reefs made from riff-raff on the north side

If y'all chain yerselves to the pilings, it really would be made out of riff-raff...

riff·raff
–noun 1. people, or a group of people, regarded as disreputable or worthless: a pack of riffraff.
2. the lowest classes; rabble: the riffraff of the city.
3. trash; rubbish.
–adjective 4. worthless, disreputable, or trashy.

Ok, granted, that wasn't the right term. I can't remember what it is, but it sounded similar.

[Sea of Green]

Actually, since they're planning on eventually relocating the ferry terminal there, the Edmonds T-pier would be removed no matter what. We're losing the dive site either way.

Very true. And I have to admit that something needs to be done about the ferry traffic problem in that town, because it's so far beyond ridiculous I'm not even sure there's a word for it. At the same time, it's a shame that they can't come up with a better way to do this. And looking at the layout of that part of the town, I'm not sure that moving the ferry terminal a few feet south (so to speak) is really going to do that much to alleviate the problem. But then, I'm no bureaucrat...

Take a look at the diagram of the new ferry terminal and it will give you a better idea of what they have planned:

http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/PressReleas ... native.pdf

????????????? Based on that diagram, it doesn't appear that the new ferry dock complex has anything to do with removing the oil dock. Looks to me like they're far enough away from each other that the oil dock wouldn't interfere with the ferry operation in any way. I wonder if we can use that............

Negative. Go to the WSDOT website and start reading some of the documents. Their main complaint (other than the creosote) is it "interrupts the view of the Sound". You might be able to make an argument for just cutting them off below the high water level. But me thinks that would be a losing cause too. It may be better to convince the powers that be to provide us with something in return. And probably the best way to sway them on that idea is to allow us to do the same thing they allow at the EUP down the road, that is, just get out of our way and let us introduce objects for an artificial reef. We'll do the work, assume the cost, just let us do it.

One other thing I just noticed looking at that diagram. Y'all see the large breakwater they plan to build? We could possibly dive the south side of it. That would probably start collecting marine life in a hurry, like another Keystone Jetty, only much bigger. May even make up for losing the Oil Dock. BUT, that's years down the road yet. I'll probably be in a walker by then.

[smike]

The thing that gets me is that the creosote ends up SOMEWHERE. Unless they plan to burn it in an environmentally safe manner, the creosote remains a problem for some creature at some time, maybe not next week, but next century, next millennium, something. The problem is just being moved. Oh, and along the way, killing all the life that is sticking to the posts/timbers in the process.

So which is worse, letting things live there, with some problems due to the existing creosote, OR, kill it all outright?

Confused.

[60south]

Sorry about the riff-raff comment, I couldn't resist. I think the word you're looking for is rip-rap.

It may be better to convince the powers that be to provide us with something in return.

Now you're on it. A well-planned, non-toxic artificial reef is the way to go. Collective pressure by the diving community may have a positive effect.

I wouldn't ask about introducing your own reef objects -- that opens another can of worms, with environmental assessments and approvals, etc. It could get ugly. If that's what you want to do I'd just do it and not say anything. (Note that I'm not advocating it, just trying to save you some trouble).

[TCWestby]

You know this nis another example of the hypocracy of government.

I've seenot noto waterfront homeowners be forced to not only create habitat if they want to so much as plant a tree on teir property, and not only that but provice annual documentation to the state that it is still in place costing the owner thousands of dollars to for a possible result.

The state on the other hand cando whatever it wants and nothing happens. I guess its good to be king, or should I say queen....

[dwashbur]

Here's the response I received from the WSF representative to the email I sent. It's basic BS, and as you can see, when it comes to the question of divers' concerns, she passed the buck.

Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to write and allowing me a few days to
respond. The pier is being removed to mitigate for environmental
impacts associated with capital improvements at the Edmonds Terminal.

The pier removal will provide both environmental and safety benefits.
The pier removal will help return the Marina Beach Park offshore area
closer to it's natural state, supporting plant and animal life that
would naturally reside there. The project will remove creosote piles
which slowly leach contaminants into the soil, as well as remove other
hazardous wastes that reside on the pier including lead, pcb's and
mercury. This action will have a cumulative positive effect on the
environment, and has been reviewed and approved by National Marine
Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WA Department of
Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At this time no
accommodations will be made for the existing plant and animal life
residing on the pier. Most piles will be shaken prior to removal
allowing any loosely attached organisms to fall off. Already fallen
piles will be left at their existing locations on the seafloor.

The pier also poses an immediate safety hazard to park visitors and
vessels in the Puget Sound. The pier is unmaintained, and in disrepair.
It is continually subject to a harsh marine environment at the Point
Edwards location causing it to slowly fall apart and increase the safety
concerns. This removal will significantly minimize those dangers.

WSDOT has worked extensively with the City of Edmonds on the
coordination and timing of the removal of their pier. Any concerns
regarding scuba diving and loss of dive area should be directed to the
City.

Please don't hesitate to call if you have additional questions -

Sincerely,
Joy Goldenberg
Washington State Ferries
Communications Manager
206-515-3411

[Pez7378]

The pier also poses an immediate safety hazard to park visitors and
vessels in the Puget Sound. The pier is unmaintained, and in disrepair.
It is continually subject to a harsh marine environment at the Point
Edwards location causing it to slowly fall apart and increase the safety
concerns. This removal will significantly minimize those dangers.

Immediate safety hazard? Yeah right.

[Joshua Smith]

I think it's time to start some "bootleg reefs." Without defining what, exactly, that means, of course. But In my imagination of such a thing, it would contain no tires, paint, oil, or any other contaminants. All I can say for sure is that I've started diving some of the deep shipwrecks out in the sound, and the amount of life found on them is stunning. The wrecks up in British Columbia have entire ecosystems living on them......what could be wrong with the idea of sinking some derelict boats out there to dive on? They're tourist magnets that generate lots of money.....there is absolutely no shortage of ships that will serve no other useful purpose.....and in the mean time, floating some metal and/ or wood out to some favorite shore diving sites........would be illegal, and of course I could never endorse stuff like that.

[dwashbur]

Here's my response to her. It won't do a bit of good, obviously, since this is just a small fish that I'm dealing with, but it makes me feel a little better that I didn't go down without squawking a bit...

On 25 Aug 2008 at 12:03, Goldenberg, Joy wrote:

> Dave,
> Thanks for taking the time to write and allowing me a few days to
> respond. The pier is being removed to mitigate for environmental
> impacts associated with capital improvements at the Edmonds Terminal.
>
> The pier removal will provide both environmental and safety benefits.
> The pier removal will help return the Marina Beach Park offshore area
> closer to it's natural state, supporting plant and animal life that
> would naturally reside there. The project will remove creosote piles
> which slowly leach contaminants into the soil, as well as remove other
> hazardous wastes that reside on the pier including lead, pcb's and
> mercury. This action will have a cumulative positive effect on the
> environment, and has been reviewed and approved by National Marine
> Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WA Department of
> Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At this time no
> accommodations will be made for the existing plant and animal life
> residing on the pier. Most piles will be shaken prior to removal
> allowing any loosely attached organisms to fall off. Already fallen
> piles will be left at their existing locations on the seafloor.

Pardon me if I find this hard to swallow. How does destroying an entire
ecosystem provide
environmental benefits? There is a thriving underwater community living
there right now.
I've seen it; I would guess that virtually none of the people in those
agencies you mention
have. The T part of the dock is home to more than a dozen spotted
ratfish, especially under
the metal I-beam parts. They live there because they have everything they
need. You say
removing the dock will return the area "closer to it's natural state." Is
its natural state devoid
of life? I don't think so. What we are describing here is destruction of
habitat, pure and
simple. When the crews are done removing it all, there will be nothing.
If this is its natural
state, then its natural state is not something to be desired. And why are
only "loosely
attached organisms" of concern? Just to give a single example, many of
the nudibranchs
that make their home on those pilings feed on the barnacles, sponges,
bryozoans and other
small organisms that cover the pilings. Shaking them off and removing
their food source
just means they will starve. Again, I fail to see how such a thing can
have a positive
environmental impact. Exactly how many decades or centuries is this
"cumulative positive
effect" supposed to take? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? I'm
sorry, but I find the
reasoning here unconvincing. There is a perfectly viable, self-sustaining
and healthy food
chain already there. The best environmental action would be to leave it
alone. This whole
thing suggests to me that either a) the people doing the environmental
studies don't know
what they are doing and haven't really looked at what is actually there,
or b) there's another
agenda somewhere. Either way, what is being done is wrong and will be
harmful to the
environment that is already there. It's funny that nobody seems to care
about that. All we
seem to hear is the political-hot-potato word "creosote." But for one
thing, it has not been
shown that there is actually any still leaching from those pilings. For
another, even if there
is, it has not been shown that it is causing any harm to the life that
makes its home on those
pilings. Rather than studies of what is actually going on under there, we
get generalizations
and knee-jerk actions. This too is wrong. If in fact such studies have
been done, I hope you
will be good enough to point me to them.

> The pier also poses an immediate safety hazard to park visitors and
> vessels in the Puget Sound. The pier is unmaintained, and in
disrepair.
> It is continually subject to a harsh marine environment at the Point
> Edwards location causing it to slowly fall apart and increase the
safety
> concerns. This removal will significantly minimize those dangers.

What "immediate safety hazard"? Nobody but divers goes near it. Park
visitors hang out on
the grass and on the beach, not on the pier or even under it. I have been
to this place
dozens of times, and this "safety hazard" simply does not exist. As for
vessels, no vessels
go anywhere near it. The closest I have seen any boats come is within
about 100 yards,
and those are fishing vessels that are looking for deeper water. Ships
don't come within
miles of it. If you agency thinks there are some dangers associated with
possible collapse
some time in the distant future, remove the above-water portions and leave
the part that is
sustaining marine life.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[billandwende]

Here's the response I received from the WSF representative to the email I sent. It's basic BS, and as you can see, when it comes to the question of divers' concerns, she passed the buck.

Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to write and allowing me a few days to
respond. The pier is being removed to mitigate for environmental
impacts associated with capital improvements at the Edmonds Terminal.

The pier removal will provide both environmental and safety benefits.
The pier removal will help return the Marina Beach Park offshore area
closer to it's natural state, supporting plant and animal life that
would naturally reside there. The project will remove creosote piles
which slowly leach contaminants into the soil, as well as remove other
hazardous wastes that reside on the pier including lead, pcb's and
mercury. This action will have a cumulative positive effect on the
environment, and has been reviewed and approved by National Marine
Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WA Department of
Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At this time no
accommodations will be made for the existing plant and animal life
residing on the pier. Most piles will be shaken prior to removal
allowing any loosely attached organisms to fall off. Already fallen
piles will be left at their existing locations on the seafloor.

The pier also poses an immediate safety hazard to park visitors and
vessels in the Puget Sound. The pier is unmaintained, and in disrepair.
It is continually subject to a harsh marine environment at the Point
Edwards location causing it to slowly fall apart and increase the safety
concerns. This removal will significantly minimize those dangers.

WSDOT has worked extensively with the City of Edmonds on the
coordination and timing of the removal of their pier. Any concerns
regarding scuba diving and loss of dive area should be directed to the
City.

Please don't hesitate to call if you have additional questions -

Sincerely,
Joy Goldenberg
Washington State Ferries
Communications Manager
206-515-3411

So the question is simple. Is the state so interested in this issue that "working piers" will also be removed? Or just the ones that disturb the people who purchased waterfront homes and now want a better view? It's like the jerks who buy near a racetrack and have it closed due to noise.

[dwashbur]

So the question is simple. Is the state so interested in this issue that "working piers" will also be removed? Or just the ones that disturb the people who purchased waterfront homes and now want a better view? It's like the jerks who buy near a racetrack and have it closed due to noise.

Or the folks near Boise, Idaho (my home-base city) a couple of years ago who complained when the Boise River overflowed its banks and flooded some of their homes, which were of course built right on the river. Do these rich geniuses move out of the flood zone? No, they tell the city and state that they need to re-route the river. In the words of Dave Barry, I am not making this up.

Some people just amaze me.

[Nwbrewer]

Dave,

While I think it's great that you're taking such an active roll in this cause, I think that going at public servants with the attitude you seem to have adopted is at best going to get you ignored, and at worst is counterproductive to getting something accomplished.

Making statements without FACTS to back them up is pointless. Perhaps a better way to work this would be to get involved with Washington Scuba Alliance, I'm sure they're involved in this in some way, and may be able to channel your time and passion to a productive end. They may even have research that can be used to back up the arguments that removing these piling would be counterproductive to the goal of achieving a healthy marine population.

Good luck.

Jake

[dwashbur]

My goal was to ask for FACTS, i.e. what specific data is there about the oil dock in particular, that sort of thing. I may have had a bit of an edge in my voice, but we'll see what she says. My hope is that I asked enough questions to generate a response, and I'll go from there. Clearly this is a done deal no matter what I or any number of us say, so I'll grant it's a bit like beating my head against a wall.